From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 11:16:57 EDT
FWIW, below is an email I sent today to Keith Pennock at the Discovery
Institute. I note that at least one member of this list has signed
Keith's statement.
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
To: kpennock@discovery.org
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:31:08 -0600
Subject: Re: Statement of Scientific Dissent
Keith:
You wrote: "In 2001 Discovery Institute put together a list of 100
doctoral scientists from around the nation who were willing to sign their
names to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the
ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the
complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian
theory should be encouraged."
Widely publicized during the past two years, this list of 100 scientists
has played an important role in educating the general public and the news
media about those in the scientific community who are skeptical of one of
the central claims of neo-Darwinian theory and who favor open discussion
of the evidence for Darwinian theory. (You can find a copy of the
original list here,
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf)."
As you may know, the ASA LISTSERV has been discussing this list. Some of
us have signed it -- others are not doing so for a variety of reasons.
My chief concern is that the statement is easily interpreted far too
broadly. All of us (I think) subscribe wholeheartedly to the second part
of the statement (careful consideration of ALL the evidence). But the
first part is ambiguous. It is not unreasonable to consider that other
factors than random mutation and natural selection are operative in the
evolution of complex life forms. Those of us who are theists, indeed, see
a divinity behind the scenes, but, of course, that is not science, but
religious philosophy. Even non-theists, generally, are not unwilling to
consider other causative reasons. Does this make them "skeptical?" In a
logical sense, yes, of course. But how is that statement to be
interpreted by the non-science educated public? Even those in the
young-earth cults can, and will, cheerfully cite the statement as
"evidence" they are on to something. And so their promotions of a
"mini-god" will be reinforced, to the continued embarassment of
Christianity as it gets tied to pseudoscience.
I see the effort to promote this statement, unless greatly qualified, as
detrimental to both science and theology.
In Christ
John Burgeson
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 30 2003 - 11:22:42 EDT